There's only one problem I see with this ad- I can't find anything unique to the Greens in it. In fact there are some political parties who also support every one of these polices- a prime example would be the Australian Democrats.
Next Federal Election, this is the kind of positive campaigning we Greens must engage. I am certain that this is the sort of thing that will bring us to being a party of Government within a generation. Within a handful of elections. We have much great work to build upon.
The greens have more policies than those on climate change or just banning stuff, even more than mentioned on this advertisement. There are things Australia needs that current governments just do not provide, for example, a viable transport system. That's the sort of policy people don't know about.
Also Tony Abbott, please, he couldn't pick an intelligent idea if it was flashing bright lights at him. If I was a liberal voter, I would be ashamed of him.
What a load of claptrap. The only rights the Greens care about are the ones they deem important - everything else gets banned. Fortunately the Greens seem to be doing a good job of pissing everyone off with their newfound influence over the government, so it is unlikely the Australian public will be duped again.
@hedwerkn please inform us of any "rights" that the Greens want to ban. I mean, seriously, if you mean that then you should be able to find it in their policies which are all readily accessible online...
@brentoneccles Legal firearm ownership; access to public land for camping, 4WDing and hunting; recreational fishing; farmers' rights over their own land; people's rights to protect their property against bushfire. The list goes on. Seriously, the way The Greens carry on, it is like they only care about your rights if you're gay, unemployed or an illegal immigrant - the rest of the population can go to hell. Fortunately voters have given them enough rope to hang themselves now...
@hedwerkn please point out to me any Greens policy to prohibit 100% any of those things. The Green primary vote polling is still as strong as it was at the election, so, it's not really accurate to say people are 'pissed off' with the Greens. Because they're just not.
@brentoneccles No, then why are over 60% of Australians against the Carbon Tax? Why is Labor trailing massively in polls because of it? Regarding policy, the Greens have made no secret of their plans to scrap the NSW Game Council (not going to happen, of course). Where I live they have been extremely vocal about limiting/closing access for 4WDing, wanting to remove the Regional Forestry Agreement and prevent farmers from growing plantations on their properties.
@hedwerkn ppl against it now because of fake-controversy created by the right, and in 2007 both sides of politics voted for a carbon tax and if Howard had won in 2007 we'd be getting a carbon tax THIS year. Labor might be down in the polls but they've got over two years to deal with it, so, I doubt the mature in the Labor party are worried about it yet. Polls will go up and down. The Greens have never advocated anything like that, random people being 'vocal' and Greens policy = 2 diff things
@brentoneccles Neither party at the 2007 election proposed a Carbon Tax - they were talking Emission Trading Schemes. Rudd attempted to get an ETS through but failed in the senate. Gillard said there'd be no Carbon Tax at the last election but broke the promise in order to hang onto power through Greens party support. Because of that, Labor is heading for an absolute drubbing at the next election, and people have seen the Greens who they really are - manipulative political amateurs.
@hedwerkn Now you're playing word games. There's very little difference between a "carbon tax" and an ETS, in-fact there's almost none. Both of them remove the current subsidies on carbon. It's that simple. If Gillard gets the "Carbon tax" and other reforms passed she wont get drubbed next election cos she'll look stronger than even Kevin (who couldn't do such reforms) and will be a PM for at least a second term. The poll numbers this early into her term mean absolutely nothing.
@hedwerkn Once the carbon tax is passed and people realise the sky hasn't fallen, Tony's fear campaign that he's been waging against capping carbon emissions will be over. It is then that he will loose numbers.
@brentoneccles Don't get too ahead of yourself son. Industry jettisoned one PM, they can do it again if they need to. More so, if Labor continue to haemorrhage supporters the powers that be will soon realise the Greens alliance is more damaging than it's worth... and Bob's whispering into Julia's ear will disappear in an instant.
@hedwerkn if industry jettison another PM, I predict we will end up with a "more left-wing" parliament than we've ever seen because the act itself would enrage people. You do need to realise that Bob is hardly whispering into Julia's ear. He himself has said the carbon tax Labor is going to put forth, and the one the Greens would prefer will be totally opposite - he's also said bcos Greens only got 12-14% of P/V that he respects Labor's right to determine much of what the carbon price will be
@hedwerkn I also really doubt industry destroying Julia over the carbon price because, despite some industries objecting the sector that everyone would "expect" to be objecting to this price is largely in favor of it - the energy sector.
Such a good ad. Easily the best ad of the 2010 election. Meanwhile, any election that sees the Australian people vote in the Greens and vote out Family First is a winner in my book. The Greens doubled their number of Senators, are likely to hold the balance of power until at least 2017, had their first House of Reps MP voted in at a general election and come July 2011 Family First's sole representative will no longer sit in Parliament. That's how Australians voted. That says something.
If others think as I do, that the Greens' own ads were quite flat, and this one is quite brilliant, does it follow that this ad assisted the Greens to their most successful federal election, or is it that Greens' voters are independent thinkers, unable to be disuaded from their own finely attuned moral compass?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If your a hypocritical. socialist, athiest wanker, vote green. Unless you have given up your car, electricity, would ban cats that kill native wild life, don't eat anything grown on a farm and never use plastic or metal that hasn't been recycled, then your cool and not a tool. Great ad in that it would have made alot of clones think they were making an informed decision
@mjgray32 firstly, if you're religious (I'm assuming that you are) don't even get me started on being a hypocrit.
Yes, we're mostly Athiest (funny that, as we're the group setting out to help people!) - but see, since about 1901 we've had the right to free religious belief.
And finally, we don't give up modern day technology because that would put us at a stupid disadvantage? We need a leader who can FORCE you AND me towards a gradual green future, radicalists achieve nothing.
BUT, it is wrong that in the House, Independents with a total of 6.6% of the vote gain four seats, but the Greens with 11.5% of the vote gain only one vote.
@banksiasong are you asking for a senate like proportional representation voting in house reps too,,, it is strange cause horse rep is 150 separate elections in effect.
sot using the % as guide is national vote ,, agree with you although the comparison in % is wrong reasoning
Also on the greens website I just noticed an article explaining how a carbon tax will actually stimulate the economy and reduce what we have to pay. It is not an obvious cycle which is why simple smear campaigns work from the coalition. Definitely have my vote this election.
Great video, and great to see so many positive comments. -
Who is CanberraUser? You have written so many times in the comments and clearly misunderstand many of the basics here.
Climate change targets in AU currently sits us at a 75m sea level rise in My lifetime and I'm not going to let an older generation spoil our economy and environment.
We work with gay people, are friends with gay people, why can't gay people publicly and legaly show their love and affection? Economy = Sustainability
Richiewato 75-metre sea level rise? Where did you get that from? So far, sea levels have risen what? Half a millimetre??
Also, if you want to talk about sustainability, why is the population issue being ignored/sidelined? Why has fertility's major contribution to the population problem been COMPLETELY IGNORED???
There is no law against gay people showing their "love and affection". What are you on about here, that there are laws against it??
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
AnnoyingLittleShit big deal. Marriage is not a life or death issue. Millions of gay couples have coped without getting married over the years and it's not like their quality of life is reduced. Marriage is just a piece of paper, THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THEM FROM LIVING TOGETHER FOR GOD SAKE so they have got NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. The "discrimination" is all in the mind. Marriage is just a piece of paper — get over it, please!!!!
Also AnnoyingLittleShit, "marriages of conveniences" should be illegal. What I suggest is that the Marriages Act be amended so that a man and a woman can only marry out of genuine love, not for money, family bullshit prestige or other pathetic excuses. The law needs to spell out what "love" is, and the prospective man and wife need to declare solemnly as part of their marriage vows that they are marrying for the purposes that marriage is designed for, and NOT "convenience" or pregnancy etc.
@CanberraUser Seriously, how do you suggest proving love? A quick root on a centerlink desk? How can one define love, then write it into law? Apart from anything else, marriage itself is a Marriage of Convenience - historically to keep women from owning land. And outlaw it? Geez, centuries of Royal Families (Europen at least) will be turing in their graves.
Anyway, it's been amusing speaking to ya - if Abbot gets in, well, I guess that's what you deserve.
@CanberraUser Yes I agree but love doesn't necessarily have to occur between a man and a woman. Homosexual people can fall in love just as easily but the law doesn't cater for them, and that needs to be changed.
AnnoyingLittleShit, it doesn't NEED to be changed. The gay community WANT it to be changed. "Need" implies that there is a serious financial or health factor involved. This can only be a "WANT". A "want" is something you'd like to have, but can go without and still not suffer a lessening in the quality of your life, risk to life, or your health. Legalising gay marriage will not make us more healthy, safer, or happier. It's just a "want" of gay couples to be "married" instead of just "together".
@CanberraUser It's discrimination, which certainly does lessen the quality of people's lives. It makes people feel inferior when in fact we're all supposed to have the same rights. A lot of violent hatred and discrimination occurs against gay people, which puts peoples' safety and sense of security at risk, and while legalizing same sex marriage won't directly put a stop to this, it will certainly be a big step towards equality and society's acceptance of gay people. There IS a need for change.
No AnnoyingLittleShit, its no more discrimination than having separate male and female toilets, having male officers searching male inmates, or having the words "man" to describe a male and "woman" to describe a female. What has the right to gay marriage got to do with VIOLENT HATRED??? Marriage is just a label, can't you see that?? I mean......what do you call 2 gay men getting married? Husband and husband? Lesbians "wife" and "wife"????
@CanberraUser There is violent hatred towards homosexual people, not gay marriage per se, and THIS is DISCRIMINATION in every sense of the word. There are male and female toilets for basic privacy reasons, neither gender is treated like a second class citizen as a result, so it's totally irrelevant! The fact that gay people do not have the same rights as straight people is blatant discrimination, in which case there DOES need to be change. basic rights apply to everyone, not just heterosexuals
1. Your argument about male and female toilets is flawed because males don't have privacy from other males, and females don't have privacy from other females, so try again......
2. Gay marriage has nothing to do with violence, whatsoever.
3. The right to marry is unimportant for the reasons I have stated previously (still can live together, and so on) and does not count as a "basic right". Housing for instance is a "basic right", it's called "survival".
@CanberraUser I specifically said that HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE are unfairly subject to violent hatred! NOT gay marriage per se! BUT legalizing gay marriage would build society's acceptance of gay people and hopefully slowly put a stop to the discrimination. AND it doesn't matter whether or not marriage is a basic right, the fact is that some people aren't given the same rights as others just because they're gay is discriminatory and not right. plus the argument about the toilets is irrelevant.
OK, AnnoyingLittleShit, the Green Left will no doubt disagree with what I am about to say, but that's because I'm not on their side of politics.
Now....I make the following conclusions:
1. "slowly" put a stop to "discrimination", "slowly" build society's acceptance of gay rights (as if it doesn't already) just means further erosion of what marriage really is all about
2. This issue is not important when compared to REAL issues that affect the country we live in. It is better off left alone.
1. No matter how small, each step counts.And what do you define marriage as really being about? Love? Well, two people can fall in love, whether it's a man and a woman, two men or two women, and each of those couples should have the right to make a legal ceremony out of it.
2. The issue is as real as anti-racism or anti-sexism, instead it's anti-homophobia. I agree there may be things higher up on the list of priorities than same sex marriage but it DOES need adressing.
1. Unimportant, and more cost-effective to leave alone. To do otherwise, you would then have to find a new word to replace "marriage" because marriage by definition is A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Perhaps what you want is legalised "gay unions" rather than "gay marriage" because who is the man and who is the woman?
2. Like I said before, it's a "want" not a "need". Gay couples (married or not) living together still have the same rights.
@CanberraUser At the moment "Gay" people are discriminated against in the fact that they cannot get married where "straight people can. Some "gay" people want to have a legal union - whatever you want to call it, but it would be that hard to charge a few words in the marriage act - other's don't. Some straight people want to get married, others don't, but at least they have a choice. Even if it is not a "necessity" Should Homosexuals not at least have the option if they want to?
@CanberraUser they don't have the same rights though! Marriage is a right, and a right that gay people miss out on. To put an end to discrimination, gay marriage has to be legalized, simple as that, because as it is now, the rights are different. And the whole purpose of legalizing 'same sex marriage' is the fat that it IS marriage, not a 'union'. The idea that marriage HAS to be exclusively between a man and a woman is a very old fashioned view.
@CanberraUser (cont.) Legalizing gay marriage is the next logical step towards total equality and acceptance. It's basically the only legal form of discrimination against homosexuals left. Society is becoming more and more accepting, so it will happen sooner or later, and it will make many people's lives happier, whether the population of homophobes like it or not.
AnnoyingLittleShit, you (and other gay advocates) are just making mountains out of molehills. Why can't you just accept that it is simply tough luck that gay couples can't get "married" and try to be a "husband and wife" simply because they are both "husband and husband" or "wife and wife". What more do you want, abolition of "he" and "she", or maybe we should ban gender identity altogether so we don't have any "discrimination" left! Get over it already!!!
You are NOT annoying, and you are NOT a little shit. I think you're just really gorgeous, incredibly clever and brave, and beautifully articulate. Good luck with life.
Anyone who's been on graphjam has seen the pie chart "Consequences of gays marrying" and the whole chart is composed of "Gays Marry" and the (less famous) one with "Gays adopting" was pure "formation of loving families"
@CanberraUser if you want lower population you shouldn't be opposing gay marriage.
There's enough ice in the Antarctic for many metres of sea level rise. Sea level rise over the last century has been about 20cm, not half a millimetre. And the rate is accelerating. Up to 2m by 2100 is plausible according to the best science we have.
@CanberraUser watch "Beyond Zero Emissions - Climate Solutions Part 2 " on YouTube. This explains the climate change situation better than I can. I can also point you towards some papers.
And my point (and the green's point) is that the love and affection can not be recognised legally or publicly in a ceremony. There are no entitlements for family situations. The Rudd government removed a lot the discrimination, however a gay couple should legally be able to hold a ceremony to celebrate this.
@richiewato. those figures aren't going be to noticeably affected by changing who runs this country, its a global issue and would require a gargantuan collaboration of organisations and nations at a global scale for the percentage greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to decrease. i say let the australian government focus on running this country, for our benefit in heathcare, schooling, infrastructure and keeping taxes at bay. not voting for greens doesnt mean we are apposed to a cleaner future
Do all idiots who don't care about renewables not realise the nature of the exponential function? do they not realise the longer you wait to change the more expensive that change will be overall? What about population? it doesnt matter where they are, in fact, better that they are here in a country that can positively deal with population growth, what matters is that as a World we reduce our population. If we keep the room to ourselves... perhaps a real invasion begins not this scapegoat of one.
Are you married? If you are, would you have liked someone to tell you, you couldn't get married because you are straight. If you aren't, I'm guessing you'd someday like the opportunity to show your love for someone, what if you were told you couldn't. Sure it's not life or death but it is what's right and if you dont get it, then you're just stupid.
Easycomego, who cares what you think is "right", just like you don't care what I think is "right"! If it aint broke, don't fix it! Leave the Marriages Act alone. It is not important whether or not we have gay marriage. Marriage is just a piece of paper.
Now let's move on to something that REALLY IS IMPORTANT with regards to running the country, instead of worrying about trivial things like gay weddings??
Still the BEST of any ad released during this election campaign. I do hope the Greens will hold the balance of power, they will be able to extract the very best that is possible from any legislation.
We are not going to implement some 1 child policy like china, because our population is not that out of hand. You are right, saying we do not have control over the USA or India but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Whether you like it or not, climate change is happening and unless you believe some magic man in the sky is going to come down and save you. Climate change has been proven, it's not some psychobabble, just deal with and pay, stop being so damn tight about your money.
Its sad that CanberraUser represents a large part of our population. May I just point out though, that "boat people" are people from a different country, what do you have against them, it's been proven each immigrant coming to Australia provides at least 3 more jobs and if u say, it's because they are terrorists or some shit, then you are a racist prick. Also, Population Control is a nice idea in theory but it's less ethical than taking some money from people.
To anyone who thinks Australia is a drop in the ocean If you think about our position economically (massive potential provider in dirty energy or clean energy) socio-economically (we could become a more wealthy, happy society if we did this right) and International status (respected, which could be moved up greatly if we can help lead the world in this) there are great incentives to move on this, regardless of what other nations do we could add great momentum to the force that may win ultimately
A These superpowers are collapsing and have weak political will.
B We have one of the largest per capita pollution rates in the world, reducing our output would be a tremendously efficient contribution to the situation.
C We are in position to revolutionise our education, academia, science and economy to reap HUGE advantage of climate change solutions.
D We are talking about risking money to save lives and the future of humanity, even if its bleak, the right choice is clear
We're ALL boat people, the First Fleet invaded in boats, the country is populated by 10 poms and their kids who came on boats. Wa are a country girt by sea, most immigrants now come on flying boats, but by sea or air, they're entitled to come. You've got marinaphobia.
Aboriginals still live, but are not permitted to live according to their own law and customs. In WA, when they have tried to protect their land from mining exploitation, the 'premier' has let them know that he will mine the fuck out of it anyway. Land is crucial to the existence of indigenous people, and goverment treatment of them, incuding suspending the Racial Discrimination Act, is a continuing source of shame for us all.
Good luck to The Greens this weekend. I really hope that their success demonstrates to the major parties that a significant proportion of the population is interested in supporting a political force focused on dealing with serious issues, and is able to see beyond the spin and misinformation that has been such a feature of this election campaign. The governance of this country should not be treated like a game of football.
FCScorpio79 Problem is, the Greenies are dealing with the serious issues in the WRONG WAY. What Australia needs is a political force that will defend our rights and our way of life, not let boat people, people-breeders or environmental radicals ruin it for us all.
@CanberraUser Dare I ask CanberraUser, but what is the Australian way of life? Is it loving the country that offers us so many freedoms that we others aren't allowed to be allowed to use them?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lazurath101 What I am saying is, if the Greenies get their way, they will unashamedly introduce a Carbon Tax, which means we will PAY MORE for enjoying the Australian way of life whatever we do.
@CanberraUser just because we've generated excessive amounts of carbon in the past is NO reason to continue doing it, in fact it's one of the worst reasons to keep doing anything.
If everyone thought like you we'd still have slavery: "If the Lincoln has his way he will unashamedly abolish slavery which means we will PAY MORE for enjoying the southern way of life whatever we do"
Just because something costs more doen't make it wrong.
@CanberraUser Both Liberal and Labor support the MRET targets - which WILL increase electricity prices, so the Liberal/National electricity prices argument is entirely hypocritical.
With the Libs though, the policy is less effective in relation to price increase than the other parties. The Greens offer a good deal -not to mention the fact that inaction on climate change will cost MASSES more. We are already predicted to lose the Barrier Reef - want to knock out our other revenue raising assets?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry you greenie socialist left-wing yahoos, but I am NOT in favour of:
1. Excusing a carbon tax which means we pay more for everything
2. Reducing the institution of marriage into "civil unions" for gay couples
3. Boat people using OUR resources while our existing population continues to grow and suck us dry and clog up our roads and dry up our standard of living
As an Australian, I think about my living standards, and as such will NOT be voting for the Green Left.
your living standards are so high because of the sacrifices made by our ancestors for hundreds of years, so that we could all enjoy this peaceful, fair, prosperous country. Amazingly, you actually believe that the sacrifices end here just in time for you to enjoy it all. what will you tell your kids when this country starts going backwards? you have no idea how lucky you are to be in this country.
2. If a man and woman who don't love each other can get married - why not a loving homosexual couple?
3. 180,000 legal immigrants per year puts the 2,500 refugees into perspective I hope. All we are saying is treat people who have sold everything and separated as families a chance (underlined) at a better life.
1. I defend to the death our living standards (AUSTRALIA's living standards for AUSTRALIANS) because:
(a) Life is too short — enjoy it while it lasts
(b) The real cause of many of the problems including carbon pollution, is overpopulation. The greenies don't address the real issues like POPULATION CONTROL
2. What??? How does a couple who DON'T love each other get married (gay or not)???
3. We are not obliged to give them a better life, WE HAVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS!!
Sorry, you utter bogan shit-for brains ignorant fuck-wad, but...
An another Australian, you are an embarassment and give us a bad name. Go away, get drunk, drive your souped-up Commodore at 180km/hr and drive in to a tree and die, you cunt.
@CanberraUser Just to piss you off, I hope even more the Greens win seats in both Houses AND with the eventual Balance of Power. It's retarded HIcks like yourself that are keeping this country from moving into the 21st Century.
What do you mean when you say I am stopping Australia from moving into the 21st century?? You mean to say politicians (or anyone that elects them) can stop the clock in Australia if that makes any sense?? Are you serious?? We are already 10 years into the 21st century, so what the hell are you on about??? Time is not something that can be stopped or reversed. It is something that "goes forward", Julia Gillard or no Julia Gillard.
Roidzmaster525, we don't have control over the big polluters like the US, India and China, even if ALL the seats of Parliament were filled with Greens. Think about that ay?
@CanberraUser Opposing Gay Marriage is Bigotry/Discrimination. As is turning back refugees.
Regarding this Climate "Thing" - someone has to take a lead, and Australians, as one of the two or three worst polluters per head of population - as well as a major exporter/provider of coal to the World, CAN make a difference to not the enitre climate on our own, but to the political will and consensus Globally, as well as by reducing the amount of Carbon going into the atmosphere in general.
Museumofdirt Now......regarding the "climate thing"......
Why the fuck is the population issue being ignored??? it is always climate this, climate that..... while our roads and our cities are increasingly clogged with more and more people pushing up housing prices and eating up more and more land. It is pretty obvious but no-one seems to want to do anything about POPULATION CONTROL, whereas it is ALL ABOUT CLIMATE
@CanberraUser Infrastructure failures are the fault of succesive Governments not investing in Infrastructure, not immigration. Overconsumption isn't caused by immigration either, but I guess it's easier to blame foriegners than it is to cut back on buying shit we don't need.
And how do you propose to "control" population? Besides, I thought the Neo-cons were all about creating new consumers/markets anyway? This is a major flaw in the logic of Liberals arguing for population control.
@Imperiumbuilder gov can tax the people who are getting rich off carbon and oil and give it to the people who really need it and support jobs and education. but it sounds like you're the fat cats' unofficial spokesperson so of course you'd oppose such a measure. get off your moral high horse.
@Imperiumbuilder um, The Greens want to tax polluters, not taxpayers. And wouldn't you rather get paid to produce solar power from your own roof instead of paying electricity bills? We need to shift subsidies from coal to renewables, and fast. We should be leading the world in solar, but no, the Czech Republic has more installed solar capacity than Australia! It is Labor & Liberal and their vested interests that keep this country from running on cheap, renewable energy.
Also, I have a friend who would vote abbott in because he thinks that the greens would 'take everyone's cars away and sacrifice human rights to save a couple of trees'. Nice. This person is at least 20 years my senior, and I'm more alert on national issues. I hate this country sometimes.
I'm not entirely in concurrence with their policy on boat people- we would become flooded with people trying to get in illegally rather than people who wait months or years to do it the legal way. However, Abbott is a giant biggot on the manner, he's very iron-fisted about it. These are desperate people, many who have been taken advantage of by people smugglers.
@TheKatIsBackAgain, thats the thing; until an asylum seekers claim is processed (whether they come via boat or not) it's hard to say that what they're doing is `illegal' or not, as its only technically illegal if they could have applied in the `normal' sign a form and apply way, if it turns out they couldn't have done that anyway, due to reasons of persecution, then coming by boat isn't illegal in any sense. In any case less than 2% of all immigrants to Australia are here on humanitarian grounds
The Greens may not need this ad, just talk about it is going viral and people are going out of their way to see it. I think that has a much bigger impact than if the ad just went to air.
@Imperiumbuilder I won't complain when petrol and prices go up because people drive too much and buy too much anyway. It's a consumer crazy society where hardly anyone gives a damn about the effect their spending habits have on the world. If a tax on carbon increases prices, which in turn leads to less consumption, that can only be a good thing in my opinion.
Wow, people should be getting bery worried that a man like tony abbott is likely to be our next PM.. Australia will be the laughing stock of the world with that leader. Ummm, errr, ummmm, ummmm, errrr...
@ Gilbert.....perhaps continuing our coal fired power plants is the best option then, or here's a better and cheaper alternative for ya....NUCLEAR...YAY, your energy bills would bloody sky rocket then,......not to mention the environmental and humanitarian risks associated with both industries.....Going GREEN is the only logical option in Australia....we should be grateful to have a party that stands up for what is right...........
@GilbertGrape78 One of the main reasons we are facing the climate crises and not moving on to embrace clean technology is because of stupidity and ignorance culminating in the spreading of misinformation... Modern solar technology sees the cost (in terms of energy output) of producing the solar panel recovered within 1 year - less for thin film technology - while the lifetime of the cell is now estimated to be at least 40 years...
Wow, I heard some guy complaining it was going to take 100 years to pay off his panels, it's come a long way since a few months ago. Imagine how good it will be in a few months time.
@GilbertGrape78 Last time I checked my power bill the extra cost associated with using 100% renewable energy (wind) for a residence is NOT "more than triple", it is approximately 20% more than what you pay for conventionally generated power.
I agree for the most part, but the state seat of Fremantle has had a very bad experience with a Green member, who when elected has turned out to be a Liberal Party double agent. A shattering experience.
@bscognome A year ago, less than 1% of Credible meteorologists denied Global warming. Today, more than 15% deny it. For one year, that's a huge increase. Good work to you too, Einstein.
@Neithie Funny that. Hey, I watched a movie called "The Age of Stupid", it's about climate change - had a real impact on me. It's worth a look. Terrible title though.
There's only one problem I see with this ad- I can't find anything unique to the Greens in it. In fact there are some political parties who also support every one of these polices- a prime example would be the Australian Democrats.
kalslater 5 months ago
While I'm not a fan of the Greens, this ad was definitely a winner for its simplicity and emotional impact.
Kostralia 6 months ago
Green is dumb.
Theholypug 7 months ago
If you think, vote Green.
Is there anything more simple and true?
liberalcynic 9 months ago 5
Next Federal Election, this is the kind of positive campaigning we Greens must engage. I am certain that this is the sort of thing that will bring us to being a party of Government within a generation. Within a handful of elections. We have much great work to build upon.
brentoneccles 10 months ago
Just saying, @hedwerkin
The greens have more policies than those on climate change or just banning stuff, even more than mentioned on this advertisement. There are things Australia needs that current governments just do not provide, for example, a viable transport system. That's the sort of policy people don't know about.
Also Tony Abbott, please, he couldn't pick an intelligent idea if it was flashing bright lights at him. If I was a liberal voter, I would be ashamed of him.
easycomego 11 months ago
What a load of claptrap. The only rights the Greens care about are the ones they deem important - everything else gets banned. Fortunately the Greens seem to be doing a good job of pissing everyone off with their newfound influence over the government, so it is unlikely the Australian public will be duped again.
hedwerkn 11 months ago
@hedwerkn please inform us of any "rights" that the Greens want to ban. I mean, seriously, if you mean that then you should be able to find it in their policies which are all readily accessible online...
brentoneccles 10 months ago
@brentoneccles Legal firearm ownership; access to public land for camping, 4WDing and hunting; recreational fishing; farmers' rights over their own land; people's rights to protect their property against bushfire. The list goes on. Seriously, the way The Greens carry on, it is like they only care about your rights if you're gay, unemployed or an illegal immigrant - the rest of the population can go to hell. Fortunately voters have given them enough rope to hang themselves now...
hedwerkn 10 months ago
@hedwerkn please point out to me any Greens policy to prohibit 100% any of those things. The Green primary vote polling is still as strong as it was at the election, so, it's not really accurate to say people are 'pissed off' with the Greens. Because they're just not.
brentoneccles 10 months ago
@brentoneccles No, then why are over 60% of Australians against the Carbon Tax? Why is Labor trailing massively in polls because of it? Regarding policy, the Greens have made no secret of their plans to scrap the NSW Game Council (not going to happen, of course). Where I live they have been extremely vocal about limiting/closing access for 4WDing, wanting to remove the Regional Forestry Agreement and prevent farmers from growing plantations on their properties.
hedwerkn 10 months ago
@hedwerkn ppl against it now because of fake-controversy created by the right, and in 2007 both sides of politics voted for a carbon tax and if Howard had won in 2007 we'd be getting a carbon tax THIS year. Labor might be down in the polls but they've got over two years to deal with it, so, I doubt the mature in the Labor party are worried about it yet. Polls will go up and down. The Greens have never advocated anything like that, random people being 'vocal' and Greens policy = 2 diff things
brentoneccles 10 months ago
@brentoneccles Neither party at the 2007 election proposed a Carbon Tax - they were talking Emission Trading Schemes. Rudd attempted to get an ETS through but failed in the senate. Gillard said there'd be no Carbon Tax at the last election but broke the promise in order to hang onto power through Greens party support. Because of that, Labor is heading for an absolute drubbing at the next election, and people have seen the Greens who they really are - manipulative political amateurs.
hedwerkn 10 months ago
@hedwerkn Now you're playing word games. There's very little difference between a "carbon tax" and an ETS, in-fact there's almost none. Both of them remove the current subsidies on carbon. It's that simple. If Gillard gets the "Carbon tax" and other reforms passed she wont get drubbed next election cos she'll look stronger than even Kevin (who couldn't do such reforms) and will be a PM for at least a second term. The poll numbers this early into her term mean absolutely nothing.
brentoneccles 10 months ago
@hedwerkn Once the carbon tax is passed and people realise the sky hasn't fallen, Tony's fear campaign that he's been waging against capping carbon emissions will be over. It is then that he will loose numbers.
brentoneccles 10 months ago
@brentoneccles Don't get too ahead of yourself son. Industry jettisoned one PM, they can do it again if they need to. More so, if Labor continue to haemorrhage supporters the powers that be will soon realise the Greens alliance is more damaging than it's worth... and Bob's whispering into Julia's ear will disappear in an instant.
hedwerkn 10 months ago
@hedwerkn if industry jettison another PM, I predict we will end up with a "more left-wing" parliament than we've ever seen because the act itself would enrage people. You do need to realise that Bob is hardly whispering into Julia's ear. He himself has said the carbon tax Labor is going to put forth, and the one the Greens would prefer will be totally opposite - he's also said bcos Greens only got 12-14% of P/V that he respects Labor's right to determine much of what the carbon price will be
brentoneccles 10 months ago
@hedwerkn I also really doubt industry destroying Julia over the carbon price because, despite some industries objecting the sector that everyone would "expect" to be objecting to this price is largely in favor of it - the energy sector.
brentoneccles 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have thousands of profiles about girls naneedj.info
nilukanisubasinha 1 year ago
Australia will have marriage equality within 5 years max. It's totally doable. Supporters, you should know you're on a winning team here.
carelikecrazy 1 year ago 2
Such a good ad. Easily the best ad of the 2010 election. Meanwhile, any election that sees the Australian people vote in the Greens and vote out Family First is a winner in my book. The Greens doubled their number of Senators, are likely to hold the balance of power until at least 2017, had their first House of Reps MP voted in at a general election and come July 2011 Family First's sole representative will no longer sit in Parliament. That's how Australians voted. That says something.
carelikecrazy 1 year ago 3
The Greens achieved the bset result of any political party in the election.
SmileFromBehind 1 year ago
This is one of the best adds I have ever seen.
FridgeOfTheFuture 1 year ago 3
Amazing. Completely amazing.
JimmehDavies 1 year ago
If others think as I do, that the Greens' own ads were quite flat, and this one is quite brilliant, does it follow that this ad assisted the Greens to their most successful federal election, or is it that Greens' voters are independent thinkers, unable to be disuaded from their own finely attuned moral compass?
ednawalling 1 year ago 3
It's a great irony that a fake ad made by a corporate ad agency for a tv show is 10 times better than a real election ad made by the Greens.
mooneepondskid 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If your a hypocritical. socialist, athiest wanker, vote green. Unless you have given up your car, electricity, would ban cats that kill native wild life, don't eat anything grown on a farm and never use plastic or metal that hasn't been recycled, then your cool and not a tool. Great ad in that it would have made alot of clones think they were making an informed decision
mjgray32 1 year ago
@mjgray32 firstly, if you're religious (I'm assuming that you are) don't even get me started on being a hypocrit.
Yes, we're mostly Athiest (funny that, as we're the group setting out to help people!) - but see, since about 1901 we've had the right to free religious belief.
And finally, we don't give up modern day technology because that would put us at a stupid disadvantage? We need a leader who can FORCE you AND me towards a gradual green future, radicalists achieve nothing.
Alkners 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
this is our election '10 parody
like if u agree this year was really shoddy... this vid was with no offence intended
well maybe to abbott
check it out
DEVI8Productions 1 year ago
GREENSLIDE in the election.
BUT, it is wrong that in the House, Independents with a total of 6.6% of the vote gain four seats, but the Greens with 11.5% of the vote gain only one vote.
Reform voting in the House !
banksiasong 1 year ago
@banksiasong are you asking for a senate like proportional representation voting in house reps too,,, it is strange cause horse rep is 150 separate elections in effect.
sot using the % as guide is national vote ,, agree with you although the comparison in % is wrong reasoning
tllc123 1 year ago
my bad richiewato @phillipmach haha
livinreppinlovinlife 1 year ago
theyre obviously not very very accepting of deaf people!
the5h4rk 1 year ago
This is SO good. Shows policy, shows heart, shows humanity...all the things we want in a real alternative!
icekat83 1 year ago 2
Also on the greens website I just noticed an article explaining how a carbon tax will actually stimulate the economy and reduce what we have to pay. It is not an obvious cycle which is why simple smear campaigns work from the coalition. Definitely have my vote this election.
richiewato 1 year ago
Great video, and great to see so many positive comments. -
Who is CanberraUser? You have written so many times in the comments and clearly misunderstand many of the basics here.
Climate change targets in AU currently sits us at a 75m sea level rise in My lifetime and I'm not going to let an older generation spoil our economy and environment.
We work with gay people, are friends with gay people, why can't gay people publicly and legaly show their love and affection? Economy = Sustainability
richiewato 1 year ago
Comment removed
CanberraUser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richiewato 75-metre sea level rise? Where did you get that from? So far, sea levels have risen what? Half a millimetre??
Also, if you want to talk about sustainability, why is the population issue being ignored/sidelined? Why has fertility's major contribution to the population problem been COMPLETELY IGNORED???
There is no law against gay people showing their "love and affection". What are you on about here, that there are laws against it??
CanberraUser 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AnnoyingLittleShit big deal. Marriage is not a life or death issue. Millions of gay couples have coped without getting married over the years and it's not like their quality of life is reduced. Marriage is just a piece of paper, THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THEM FROM LIVING TOGETHER FOR GOD SAKE so they have got NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. The "discrimination" is all in the mind. Marriage is just a piece of paper — get over it, please!!!!
CanberraUser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also AnnoyingLittleShit, "marriages of conveniences" should be illegal. What I suggest is that the Marriages Act be amended so that a man and a woman can only marry out of genuine love, not for money, family bullshit prestige or other pathetic excuses. The law needs to spell out what "love" is, and the prospective man and wife need to declare solemnly as part of their marriage vows that they are marrying for the purposes that marriage is designed for, and NOT "convenience" or pregnancy etc.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Seriously, how do you suggest proving love? A quick root on a centerlink desk? How can one define love, then write it into law? Apart from anything else, marriage itself is a Marriage of Convenience - historically to keep women from owning land. And outlaw it? Geez, centuries of Royal Families (Europen at least) will be turing in their graves.
Anyway, it's been amusing speaking to ya - if Abbot gets in, well, I guess that's what you deserve.
museumofdirt 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Yes I agree but love doesn't necessarily have to occur between a man and a woman. Homosexual people can fall in love just as easily but the law doesn't cater for them, and that needs to be changed.
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
AnnoyingLittleShit, it doesn't NEED to be changed. The gay community WANT it to be changed. "Need" implies that there is a serious financial or health factor involved. This can only be a "WANT". A "want" is something you'd like to have, but can go without and still not suffer a lessening in the quality of your life, risk to life, or your health. Legalising gay marriage will not make us more healthy, safer, or happier. It's just a "want" of gay couples to be "married" instead of just "together".
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser It's discrimination, which certainly does lessen the quality of people's lives. It makes people feel inferior when in fact we're all supposed to have the same rights. A lot of violent hatred and discrimination occurs against gay people, which puts peoples' safety and sense of security at risk, and while legalizing same sex marriage won't directly put a stop to this, it will certainly be a big step towards equality and society's acceptance of gay people. There IS a need for change.
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
No AnnoyingLittleShit, its no more discrimination than having separate male and female toilets, having male officers searching male inmates, or having the words "man" to describe a male and "woman" to describe a female. What has the right to gay marriage got to do with VIOLENT HATRED??? Marriage is just a label, can't you see that?? I mean......what do you call 2 gay men getting married? Husband and husband? Lesbians "wife" and "wife"????
No, "change" will only further complicate things.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser There is violent hatred towards homosexual people, not gay marriage per se, and THIS is DISCRIMINATION in every sense of the word. There are male and female toilets for basic privacy reasons, neither gender is treated like a second class citizen as a result, so it's totally irrelevant! The fact that gay people do not have the same rights as straight people is blatant discrimination, in which case there DOES need to be change. basic rights apply to everyone, not just heterosexuals
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
AnnoyingLittleShit,
1. Your argument about male and female toilets is flawed because males don't have privacy from other males, and females don't have privacy from other females, so try again......
2. Gay marriage has nothing to do with violence, whatsoever.
3. The right to marry is unimportant for the reasons I have stated previously (still can live together, and so on) and does not count as a "basic right". Housing for instance is a "basic right", it's called "survival".
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser I specifically said that HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE are unfairly subject to violent hatred! NOT gay marriage per se! BUT legalizing gay marriage would build society's acceptance of gay people and hopefully slowly put a stop to the discrimination. AND it doesn't matter whether or not marriage is a basic right, the fact is that some people aren't given the same rights as others just because they're gay is discriminatory and not right. plus the argument about the toilets is irrelevant.
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, AnnoyingLittleShit, the Green Left will no doubt disagree with what I am about to say, but that's because I'm not on their side of politics.
Now....I make the following conclusions:
1. "slowly" put a stop to "discrimination", "slowly" build society's acceptance of gay rights (as if it doesn't already) just means further erosion of what marriage really is all about
2. This issue is not important when compared to REAL issues that affect the country we live in. It is better off left alone.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
1. No matter how small, each step counts.And what do you define marriage as really being about? Love? Well, two people can fall in love, whether it's a man and a woman, two men or two women, and each of those couples should have the right to make a legal ceremony out of it.
2. The issue is as real as anti-racism or anti-sexism, instead it's anti-homophobia. I agree there may be things higher up on the list of priorities than same sex marriage but it DOES need adressing.
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
AnnoyingLittleShit
1. Unimportant, and more cost-effective to leave alone. To do otherwise, you would then have to find a new word to replace "marriage" because marriage by definition is A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Perhaps what you want is legalised "gay unions" rather than "gay marriage" because who is the man and who is the woman?
2. Like I said before, it's a "want" not a "need". Gay couples (married or not) living together still have the same rights.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
Comment removed
paddyc184 1 year ago
@CanberraUser At the moment "Gay" people are discriminated against in the fact that they cannot get married where "straight people can. Some "gay" people want to have a legal union - whatever you want to call it, but it would be that hard to charge a few words in the marriage act - other's don't. Some straight people want to get married, others don't, but at least they have a choice. Even if it is not a "necessity" Should Homosexuals not at least have the option if they want to?
paddyc184 1 year ago 6
@paddyc184 well said
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 2
@CanberraUser they don't have the same rights though! Marriage is a right, and a right that gay people miss out on. To put an end to discrimination, gay marriage has to be legalized, simple as that, because as it is now, the rights are different. And the whole purpose of legalizing 'same sex marriage' is the fat that it IS marriage, not a 'union'. The idea that marriage HAS to be exclusively between a man and a woman is a very old fashioned view.
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 18
@CanberraUser (cont.) Legalizing gay marriage is the next logical step towards total equality and acceptance. It's basically the only legal form of discrimination against homosexuals left. Society is becoming more and more accepting, so it will happen sooner or later, and it will make many people's lives happier, whether the population of homophobes like it or not.
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago 33
This has been flagged as spam show
AnnoyingLittleShit, you (and other gay advocates) are just making mountains out of molehills. Why can't you just accept that it is simply tough luck that gay couples can't get "married" and try to be a "husband and wife" simply because they are both "husband and husband" or "wife and wife". What more do you want, abolition of "he" and "she", or maybe we should ban gender identity altogether so we don't have any "discrimination" left! Get over it already!!!
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@AnnoyingLittleShit
You are NOT annoying, and you are NOT a little shit. I think you're just really gorgeous, incredibly clever and brave, and beautifully articulate. Good luck with life.
wadjela 1 year ago 3
@wadjela awww thanks ♥
AnnoyingLittleShit 1 year ago
@AnnoyingLittleShit
Anyone who's been on graphjam has seen the pie chart "Consequences of gays marrying" and the whole chart is composed of "Gays Marry" and the (less famous) one with "Gays adopting" was pure "formation of loving families"
AgentTasmania 1 year ago
@AnnoyingLittleShit You do understand that true equality can never be achieved.
Ryodisis 5 months ago
Comment removed
AnnoyingLittleShit 5 months ago
@CanberraUser if you want lower population you shouldn't be opposing gay marriage.
There's enough ice in the Antarctic for many metres of sea level rise. Sea level rise over the last century has been about 20cm, not half a millimetre. And the rate is accelerating. Up to 2m by 2100 is plausible according to the best science we have.
philipmach 1 year ago
@CanberraUser watch "Beyond Zero Emissions - Climate Solutions Part 2 " on YouTube. This explains the climate change situation better than I can. I can also point you towards some papers.
And my point (and the green's point) is that the love and affection can not be recognised legally or publicly in a ceremony. There are no entitlements for family situations. The Rudd government removed a lot the discrimination, however a gay couple should legally be able to hold a ceremony to celebrate this.
richiewato 1 year ago
@richiewato. those figures aren't going be to noticeably affected by changing who runs this country, its a global issue and would require a gargantuan collaboration of organisations and nations at a global scale for the percentage greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to decrease. i say let the australian government focus on running this country, for our benefit in heathcare, schooling, infrastructure and keeping taxes at bay. not voting for greens doesnt mean we are apposed to a cleaner future
livinreppinlovinlife 1 year ago
Apologies for a double post.
museumofdirt 1 year ago 3
Do all idiots who don't care about renewables not realise the nature of the exponential function? do they not realise the longer you wait to change the more expensive that change will be overall? What about population? it doesnt matter where they are, in fact, better that they are here in a country that can positively deal with population growth, what matters is that as a World we reduce our population. If we keep the room to ourselves... perhaps a real invasion begins not this scapegoat of one.
Darean51 1 year ago 2
@Canberra User
Are you married? If you are, would you have liked someone to tell you, you couldn't get married because you are straight. If you aren't, I'm guessing you'd someday like the opportunity to show your love for someone, what if you were told you couldn't. Sure it's not life or death but it is what's right and if you dont get it, then you're just stupid.
easycomego 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Easycomego, who cares what you think is "right", just like you don't care what I think is "right"! If it aint broke, don't fix it! Leave the Marriages Act alone. It is not important whether or not we have gay marriage. Marriage is just a piece of paper.
Now let's move on to something that REALLY IS IMPORTANT with regards to running the country, instead of worrying about trivial things like gay weddings??
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser they said that about the Apology too. Easy to do, no cost to the people who don't like it, makes some people very happy.
Why do you think being objectionable to a section of the population is "trivial" anyway? What kind of country do you want to live in?
philipmach 1 year ago
Still the BEST of any ad released during this election campaign. I do hope the Greens will hold the balance of power, they will be able to extract the very best that is possible from any legislation.
ekydami 1 year ago 3
Finally, Vote Green
and if you are so anti-green, go and watch tony abbott talk about how broadband is like high-fibre eggs, for god sake, get with the times.
easycomego 1 year ago 3
We are not going to implement some 1 child policy like china, because our population is not that out of hand. You are right, saying we do not have control over the USA or India but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Whether you like it or not, climate change is happening and unless you believe some magic man in the sky is going to come down and save you. Climate change has been proven, it's not some psychobabble, just deal with and pay, stop being so damn tight about your money.
easycomego 1 year ago
Its sad that CanberraUser represents a large part of our population. May I just point out though, that "boat people" are people from a different country, what do you have against them, it's been proven each immigrant coming to Australia provides at least 3 more jobs and if u say, it's because they are terrorists or some shit, then you are a racist prick. Also, Population Control is a nice idea in theory but it's less ethical than taking some money from people.
easycomego 1 year ago
To anyone who thinks Australia is a drop in the ocean If you think about our position economically (massive potential provider in dirty energy or clean energy) socio-economically (we could become a more wealthy, happy society if we did this right) and International status (respected, which could be moved up greatly if we can help lead the world in this) there are great incentives to move on this, regardless of what other nations do we could add great momentum to the force that may win ultimately
Darean51 1 year ago
Darean51, it is not up to us in our little country to "lead the world". That is for superpowers such as the United States and Great Britain.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
A These superpowers are collapsing and have weak political will.
B We have one of the largest per capita pollution rates in the world, reducing our output would be a tremendously efficient contribution to the situation.
C We are in position to revolutionise our education, academia, science and economy to reap HUGE advantage of climate change solutions.
D We are talking about risking money to save lives and the future of humanity, even if its bleak, the right choice is clear
Darean51 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no boat people
stonemarshy 1 year ago
@stonemarshy
We're ALL boat people, the First Fleet invaded in boats, the country is populated by 10 poms and their kids who came on boats. Wa are a country girt by sea, most immigrants now come on flying boats, but by sea or air, they're entitled to come. You've got marinaphobia.
wadjela 1 year ago 2
@wadjela Aborigonals still live.
111hypo111 1 year ago
@111hypo111
Aboriginals still live, but are not permitted to live according to their own law and customs. In WA, when they have tried to protect their land from mining exploitation, the 'premier' has let them know that he will mine the fuck out of it anyway. Land is crucial to the existence of indigenous people, and goverment treatment of them, incuding suspending the Racial Discrimination Act, is a continuing source of shame for us all.
oopsydahlia 1 year ago
Gay marriage = Good
Boat people = Ship them back
HSDDTS 1 year ago
this is the only good ad i've seen in this campaign.
mysweetdisposition 1 year ago 20
@mysweetdisposition
then you haven't been watching Gruen mutch
AgentTasmania 1 year ago
Fantastic add! Vote Green!
amymeihua 1 year ago 14
Vote Green!
TheRealOsmond 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Vote Liberal!
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser I'm voting Liberal just because you wrote that
roidzmaster525 1 year ago
Thoughtful policies and no mud-slinging. This is politics for grown-ups.
penivos 1 year ago 3
Ha ha ha another example of how advertising has us all fooled ;-)
MerBeeBeep 1 year ago
Good luck to The Greens this weekend. I really hope that their success demonstrates to the major parties that a significant proportion of the population is interested in supporting a political force focused on dealing with serious issues, and is able to see beyond the spin and misinformation that has been such a feature of this election campaign. The governance of this country should not be treated like a game of football.
FCScorpio79 1 year ago
FCScorpio79 Problem is, the Greenies are dealing with the serious issues in the WRONG WAY. What Australia needs is a political force that will defend our rights and our way of life, not let boat people, people-breeders or environmental radicals ruin it for us all.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
"Boat People" -- are people seriously still giving into this gimmick?
obnoxiousvf 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Dare I ask CanberraUser, but what is the Australian way of life? Is it loving the country that offers us so many freedoms that we others aren't allowed to be allowed to use them?
Lazurath101 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lazurath101 What I am saying is, if the Greenies get their way, they will unashamedly introduce a Carbon Tax, which means we will PAY MORE for enjoying the Australian way of life whatever we do.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser just because we've generated excessive amounts of carbon in the past is NO reason to continue doing it, in fact it's one of the worst reasons to keep doing anything.
If everyone thought like you we'd still have slavery: "If the Lincoln has his way he will unashamedly abolish slavery which means we will PAY MORE for enjoying the southern way of life whatever we do"
Just because something costs more doen't make it wrong.
Jarrah31 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Both Liberal and Labor support the MRET targets - which WILL increase electricity prices, so the Liberal/National electricity prices argument is entirely hypocritical.
With the Libs though, the policy is less effective in relation to price increase than the other parties. The Greens offer a good deal -not to mention the fact that inaction on climate change will cost MASSES more. We are already predicted to lose the Barrier Reef - want to knock out our other revenue raising assets?
kuliwil 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Kuliwil Yeah but there is one problem with "taking action on climate change" y'see.....
How long would this "action" take to have any effect?
CanberraUser 1 year ago
The major reasons why my vote is going to Greens this election can be seen in this advert.
A job well done :)
It should be on TV. SUCH a shame it isn't.
HellsAngelAmz 1 year ago
WHOEVER DISLIKES THIS VIDEO...
Is Tony Abbot.
Or Peter Garrett.
Or an idiot.
Or all three.
T3hMarz 1 year ago 2
Peter Garrett dislikes this video? He's the biggest greenie among the Labor ministers, alongside Lesbian Wong!!
CanberraUser 1 year ago
What a beautiful ad. Such a shame it can't run.
sassmyfrass 1 year ago
GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS
culturevulture123 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry you greenie socialist left-wing yahoos, but I am NOT in favour of:
1. Excusing a carbon tax which means we pay more for everything
2. Reducing the institution of marriage into "civil unions" for gay couples
3. Boat people using OUR resources while our existing population continues to grow and suck us dry and clog up our roads and dry up our standard of living
As an Australian, I think about my living standards, and as such will NOT be voting for the Green Left.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser You sir, are a twat.
drewcwhitehead 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
The institution of marriage is dead. There is a separation of Church and State in this country, and as an Australian, I think I can say only this;
Neck up, cunt.
You're obviously a homophobic conservative who's more than likely married. I hope your children turn out to be queer socialists.
ViscountLazarus 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
your living standards are so high because of the sacrifices made by our ancestors for hundreds of years, so that we could all enjoy this peaceful, fair, prosperous country. Amazingly, you actually believe that the sacrifices end here just in time for you to enjoy it all. what will you tell your kids when this country starts going backwards? you have no idea how lucky you are to be in this country.
beaudjangles 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
2. If a man and woman who don't love each other can get married - why not a loving homosexual couple?
3. 180,000 legal immigrants per year puts the 2,500 refugees into perspective I hope. All we are saying is treat people who have sold everything and separated as families a chance (underlined) at a better life.
beaudjangles 1 year ago
Beaudjangles:
1. I defend to the death our living standards (AUSTRALIA's living standards for AUSTRALIANS) because:
(a) Life is too short — enjoy it while it lasts
(b) The real cause of many of the problems including carbon pollution, is overpopulation. The greenies don't address the real issues like POPULATION CONTROL
2. What??? How does a couple who DON'T love each other get married (gay or not)???
3. We are not obliged to give them a better life, WE HAVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS!!
CanberraUser 1 year ago
Sorry, you utter bogan shit-for brains ignorant fuck-wad, but...
An another Australian, you are an embarassment and give us a bad name. Go away, get drunk, drive your souped-up Commodore at 180km/hr and drive in to a tree and die, you cunt.
TheFernBrook 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Just to piss you off, I hope even more the Greens win seats in both Houses AND with the eventual Balance of Power. It's retarded HIcks like yourself that are keeping this country from moving into the 21st Century.
museumofdirt 1 year ago
What do you mean when you say I am stopping Australia from moving into the 21st century?? You mean to say politicians (or anyone that elects them) can stop the clock in Australia if that makes any sense?? Are you serious?? We are already 10 years into the 21st century, so what the hell are you on about??? Time is not something that can be stopped or reversed. It is something that "goes forward", Julia Gillard or no Julia Gillard.
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Supporting bigotry, discrimination and denying the science on Climate. All things that we've weeded out over the last 30+ years.
museumofdirt 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What "bigotry"? What "discrimination"? What "climate science denial"??
Regarding this "climate" thing, you are deluding yourself if you think a carbon tax in Australia will fix the weather problems of the whole world!!!!
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser think global act local dude
roidzmaster525 1 year ago
Roidzmaster525, we don't have control over the big polluters like the US, India and China, even if ALL the seats of Parliament were filled with Greens. Think about that ay?
CanberraUser 1 year ago
@CanberraUser
Oh, l think you're pulling our legs,
you're obviously not pulling anyone else.
wadjela 1 year ago
@CanberraUser Opposing Gay Marriage is Bigotry/Discrimination. As is turning back refugees.
Regarding this Climate "Thing" - someone has to take a lead, and Australians, as one of the two or three worst polluters per head of population - as well as a major exporter/provider of coal to the World, CAN make a difference to not the enitre climate on our own, but to the political will and consensus Globally, as well as by reducing the amount of Carbon going into the atmosphere in general.
museumofdirt 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Museumofdirt Now......regarding the "climate thing"......
Why the fuck is the population issue being ignored??? it is always climate this, climate that..... while our roads and our cities are increasingly clogged with more and more people pushing up housing prices and eating up more and more land. It is pretty obvious but no-one seems to want to do anything about POPULATION CONTROL, whereas it is ALL ABOUT CLIMATE
CanberraUser 1 year ago
Comment removed
museumofdirt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CanberraUser Infrastructure failures are the fault of succesive Governments not investing in Infrastructure, not immigration. Overconsumption isn't caused by immigration either, but I guess it's easier to blame foriegners than it is to cut back on buying shit we don't need.
And how do you propose to "control" population? Besides, I thought the Neo-cons were all about creating new consumers/markets anyway? This is a major flaw in the logic of Liberals arguing for population control.
museumofdirt 1 year ago
A beautifully executed piece of advertising. I highly recommend the Greens hire this firm for their future election promotional needs.
floopyboo 1 year ago
@Gilbertgrape
go find an energy forum.
cybanatural 1 year ago
@GilbertGrape78 STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION - average solar panel life is 40 years and average cost for setting up self sufficient setup is 14k...
OCJaustralia 1 year ago 3
@Imperiumbuilder gov can tax the people who are getting rich off carbon and oil and give it to the people who really need it and support jobs and education. but it sounds like you're the fat cats' unofficial spokesperson so of course you'd oppose such a measure. get off your moral high horse.
boscognome 1 year ago
@Imperiumbuilder um, The Greens want to tax polluters, not taxpayers. And wouldn't you rather get paid to produce solar power from your own roof instead of paying electricity bills? We need to shift subsidies from coal to renewables, and fast. We should be leading the world in solar, but no, the Czech Republic has more installed solar capacity than Australia! It is Labor & Liberal and their vested interests that keep this country from running on cheap, renewable energy.
charbonou2 1 year ago
very humanitarian approach.
Great views, but not sure if a country can be run like this, If they get elected I'll be interested to see how the economy fairs.
paulthehanna 1 year ago 2
my vote is going to the greens, Stuff the Other 2 that just do nothing but fuk up Australia even moRe...
GayBoyRunning 1 year ago 8
Comment removed
ju1ianb0ndTV 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
a vote for the greens is a vote for labor
ju1ianb0ndTV 1 year ago
@ju1ianb0ndTV
A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. Voters then decide who to preference. More inane conservative scaremongering.
wattlesong 1 year ago 3
@ju1ianb0ndTV yeah allocate your own preferences u idiot.
teatree80 1 year ago
@ju1ianb0ndTV yeh if you fill ya ballot in that way it is
tllc123 1 year ago
Go Greens
PenguinFB 1 year ago 10
Great advert. This is what the world needs to see :D
BravoCharlieTV 1 year ago 3
Great ad for the Greens' Party.
Great ad for the Republic of Everyone.
I wish them both every success.
oopsydahlia 1 year ago 3
Also, I have a friend who would vote abbott in because he thinks that the greens would 'take everyone's cars away and sacrifice human rights to save a couple of trees'. Nice. This person is at least 20 years my senior, and I'm more alert on national issues. I hate this country sometimes.
TheKatIsBackAgain 1 year ago 3
I'm not entirely in concurrence with their policy on boat people- we would become flooded with people trying to get in illegally rather than people who wait months or years to do it the legal way. However, Abbott is a giant biggot on the manner, he's very iron-fisted about it. These are desperate people, many who have been taken advantage of by people smugglers.
TheKatIsBackAgain 1 year ago
@TheKatIsBackAgain, thats the thing; until an asylum seekers claim is processed (whether they come via boat or not) it's hard to say that what they're doing is `illegal' or not, as its only technically illegal if they could have applied in the `normal' sign a form and apply way, if it turns out they couldn't have done that anyway, due to reasons of persecution, then coming by boat isn't illegal in any sense. In any case less than 2% of all immigrants to Australia are here on humanitarian grounds
theryecatchers 1 year ago
The Greens may not need this ad, just talk about it is going viral and people are going out of their way to see it. I think that has a much bigger impact than if the ad just went to air.
GoochOwnsYou 1 year ago
@Imperiumbuilder I won't complain when petrol and prices go up because people drive too much and buy too much anyway. It's a consumer crazy society where hardly anyone gives a damn about the effect their spending habits have on the world. If a tax on carbon increases prices, which in turn leads to less consumption, that can only be a good thing in my opinion.
boscognome 1 year ago
Wow, people should be getting bery worried that a man like tony abbott is likely to be our next PM.. Australia will be the laughing stock of the world with that leader. Ummm, errr, ummmm, ummmm, errrr...
lakersboy241 1 year ago 3
@ Gilbert.....perhaps continuing our coal fired power plants is the best option then, or here's a better and cheaper alternative for ya....NUCLEAR...YAY, your energy bills would bloody sky rocket then,......not to mention the environmental and humanitarian risks associated with both industries.....Going GREEN is the only logical option in Australia....we should be grateful to have a party that stands up for what is right...........
mikiv82 1 year ago 2
Yeah. Fantastic ad. Show's what people who know what they are doing can create.
BeesAndMonkeys 1 year ago
@GilbertGrape78 One of the main reasons we are facing the climate crises and not moving on to embrace clean technology is because of stupidity and ignorance culminating in the spreading of misinformation... Modern solar technology sees the cost (in terms of energy output) of producing the solar panel recovered within 1 year - less for thin film technology - while the lifetime of the cell is now estimated to be at least 40 years...
OCJaustralia 1 year ago 4
@OCJaustralia
Wow, I heard some guy complaining it was going to take 100 years to pay off his panels, it's come a long way since a few months ago. Imagine how good it will be in a few months time.
NoCarbonTax 1 year ago
Comment removed
OCJaustralia 1 year ago
Comment removed
OCJaustralia 1 year ago
@GilbertGrape78 Last time I checked my power bill the extra cost associated with using 100% renewable energy (wind) for a residence is NOT "more than triple", it is approximately 20% more than what you pay for conventionally generated power.
eliirvineify 1 year ago 2
@eliirvineify
And they call us "Alarmists" ;)
obnoxiousvf 1 year ago
Wow, what a great ad.
Shibi181 1 year ago 2
A party that actually stands up for its principles.. a nice rarity these days
vida0adventure 1 year ago 28
@vida0adventure
I agree for the most part, but the state seat of Fremantle has had a very bad experience with a Green member, who when elected has turned out to be a Liberal Party double agent. A shattering experience.
oopsydahlia 1 year ago
@bscognome A year ago, less than 1% of Credible meteorologists denied Global warming. Today, more than 15% deny it. For one year, that's a huge increase. Good work to you too, Einstein.
cdeavin 1 year ago
@cdeavin but 89% of statistics are made up. Where did you get those ones?
rideboy75 1 year ago
@cdeavin source? pull out more statistics while you're at it, it's easy and sounds credible.
boscognome 1 year ago
Going green this election. Seems to be the only party with any proper policies and that are prepared to stand by them.
atractorads 1 year ago 58
@atractorads Almost everyone I know has the same feelings.
Neithie 1 year ago 4
@Neithie Funny that. Hey, I watched a movie called "The Age of Stupid", it's about climate change - had a real impact on me. It's worth a look. Terrible title though.
atractorads 1 year ago
Great ad.
ladyfuchsia 1 year ago 4